As reluctant ruling Democrats face the daunting task of crafting state legislation to allow Illinois citizens to carry guns in public, they may need to look no further than the recent federal court decision that struck down the state's longtime ban.In the ruling from the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Richard Posner argues that instead of a complete ban on concealed carry, Illinois must follow other states that have struck a balance between public safety and the constitutional right to bear arms. He specifically points to New York, which has one of the most restrictive — and complicated — concealed carry laws in the nation.Indeed, New York may provide a road map for Democrats who have long opposed guns on Illinois streets and are looking to craft a measure that includes tough restrictions. Not only does the law in New York give broad power to officials to deny gun permits, it also allows New York City to operate under stricter standards than the rest of the state — a nod to the geographical divide also seen in Illinois, where urbanites are less inclined to embrace guns than their counterparts in less populous areas of the state.When asked if New York should serve as a model during negotiations with the Illinois Legislature, Gov. Pat Quinn said: "Everything must be on the table. ... I imagine there will be hearings, I know there will be, on this subject, and there will be an opportunity to bring out the very best way to go for our state."Putting any concealed carry measure in place is bound to be a contentious process, pitting those who have continually blocked efforts to pass such legislation against gun rights activists emboldened by the court's decision. Both sides are looking to other states to serve as a possible model, but the laws are about as different as Chicago skyscrapers are from central Illinois cornstalks.For instance, a handful of states, such as Alaska and Arizona, do not require any permits to carry guns outside the home. Then there are states like New York, which place the burden on citizens to prove why they need to carry a weapon.It's a tough standard, but one that was upheld by a federal appeals court last month. Known as a "may issue" state, a typical gun owner in New York must show "proper cause" in order to get a permit to carry a gun in public.Proper cause is defined as "a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community or of persons engaged in the same profession." However, New York has a decentralized permitting system, meaning each county and the city of New York issues permits and therefore can establish their own set of guidelines and rules. So, what may be considered proper cause in one county may not meet the same standard in another."As for what demonstrates a need, every licensing office will have their own answer to that question," said New York State Police Sgt. James Sherman, who works for the Pistol Permit Bureau. "For some, depending on their perspective, almost no one will be able to demonstrate a sufficient enough need. It's somewhat subjective; a big part of it is discretionary."As is the case in Illinois, officials in urban areas of New York are more hesitant to embrace concealed carry than in the more rural areas. That means the licensing process is more restrictive, and relatively few concealed carry permits are issued in New York City compared with other areas of the state, said Paul Browne, a deputy commissioner with the New York Police Department, which oversees the licensing process in the city.As a result, most permits are restricted to business owners who want to carry a gun on their property or to those who need a gun as part of their job, such as security guards. But even then, when and where those permit holders are allowed to carry a gun can be limited. For instance, some may have approval to carry a weapon only within the confines of their business. Permits may also be granted to those who have a documented personal threat, or those who think they need extra protection, such as diamond dealers, but Browne said that is fairly rare.Through the end of November, New York City had issued 2,074 new handgun permits, bringing the total active permit holders in the city to 36,652 for a population of about 8 million people.In another nod to the geographical divide, permits issued by counties outside New York are not valid within city limits without a special license. However, because those approved to carry a gun in New York City face tougher standards, permits issued in the city are honored throughout the rest of the state.At a minimum, applicants for a concealed carry license in New York must be state residents who are at least 21 and have no felony convictions. An arrest without a conviction could also disqualify an application, depending on the licensing officer's judgment.Applicants must provide their photograph, fingerprints and four character witnesses, as well as disclose any drug use or history of mental illness. In the city of New York, those requesting permits to protect a business must also provide copies of tax returns, bank deposit slips and payroll information. Fees vary throughout the state but can be several hundred dollars.Each submission is individually vetted during an investigation period that can take up to six months, though sometimes the process can stretch on longer. If an application is denied, the licensing officer must provide specific reasons. An applicant can appeal a rejection in court.If approved, permit holders may face some restrictions, such as being limited to carrying guns only for target shooting or hunting. All permit holders must submit a record of the guns they own to the state, including make, model and serial number. Permits issued in New York City are valid for three years. In Nassau and Suffolk counties, on Long Island, licenses are valid for five years. Permits issued throughout the rest of the state are valid indefinitely.Gun advocates in New York say they wish the system was less restrictive and less confusing — entire businesses have popped up aimed at helping people navigate the system — but it's better than the alternative of not being allowed to carry a gun at all."It's an involved process, it's not an easy process, but it's certainly not an impossible process," said Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association.As of 2011, there were 1,281,662 concealed carry permits on file in New York state, according to a study earlier this year by the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, those numbers don't accurately reflect the actual number of people allowed to carry guns. The files date to 1936, and the state does not purge inactive permits of those who may have died or whose privileges were revoked, so it's likely the number of current permit holders is lower.Even those who hold permits may not carry their weapons in certain places, including schools and universities. Towns may also choose to ban weapons in locations such as government offices.After years of failed negotiations to pass a concealed carry law, gun advocates in Illinois have warned they won't be so willing to compromise on a New York-style measure.They argue that the court ruling striking down Illinois' ban gives them the upper hand when it comes to drafting a law. However, both sides acknowledge the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school that killed 20 children further complicates an already emotional debate.Still, the governor has made it clear he wants tough restrictions when it comes to who can carry a gun and where. He argues that those with felony convictions and a history of driving under the influence or domestic violence should not qualify for a permit in Illinois, adding that the state must be equally diligent about denying permits to those with mental illness.He also wants to ban guns from being carried at schools, university campuses and shopping malls, saying the state's own mass shooting at Northern Illinois University in February 2008 is a reminder of the strict precautions lawmakers should take. Quinn said he also will push for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines when lawmakers return to Springfield in January."We have to have some places that people cannot carry loaded weapons that are concealed on their person," Quinn said. "We have to have limitations on that, and I think that the court when it issued its ruling ... made that clear, that limitations that are reasonable can be placed on so-called concealed carry."Gun rights activists in Illinois acknowledge that some rules must be put in place, particularly proper training regulations to make sure gun holders know how to use their weapons safely. But they say the state must be careful not to go too far, lest the intention of the court ruling be undermined."The idea is not to stomp on a constitutional right just because you have the power to do so," said Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association. "It can be regulated, but it shouldn't be regulated out of existence."mcgarcia@tribune.comTwitter @moniquegarcia

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

It's really a simple process, ask yourself: "would I rather have NY style gun laws or constitutional carry with all the BS city ordinances? Hmmmm...."

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

I'm also thinking, we may actually have to try out constitutional carry for a while, let the meddling control freak socialists get their undies in a bunch and when their blood pressure gets really really high then they can sign off on our carry bill.

Another reason the anti-gunners don't want to see constitutional carry - is because when the streets don't run crimson with blood, (like they said it would) and when Illinois doesn't turn into the OK corral, (like they said it would), and when armed robberies, rapes and burglaries start to plummet, the people in those cities like Chicago and Oak Park are going to demand that the BS anti-gun ordinances be repealed. And then the anti-gunners have really completely totally lost.

They don't want to see that happen, so they'll deal.

‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive...those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.‘
- C. S. Lewis

The only people looking to NYC are Chicago politicians who want to preserve their state-within-a-state powers.
As for NYC's permit system, why does a diamond merchant have a greater right to self-defense than a computer tech.?
Howard Stern has a CCW. I guess his life is more valuable than a DJ at a smaller station?

ckmorley

Anti-gunners tell us to run away from a mugger. What about those of us who can't run ?
Still active in IL CCW on behalf of my IL-dwelling family and friends :-)

the antis wrote a new yourk style into their draft. We ain't buying it.

We went to court we won. WE and I am not in the mood to walk backwards from that. they were warned. Now we just need to find a couple of votes to seal the deal. How we get there is the path I seek. You see, through all of this maze of the legisalture a fog of war there is a path. My job is to find it, and stay on it. not vear tot he right or vear to the left. Just stay on the path.

That is how i see my role. That means writing a bill that takes advantage of the Court situtation and the politics of the legislature. WE know the minefield better than the other side. WE know the players better than the otherside. We know the politics of the issue better than the other side.

They have the Mayor who will scream and yell andstamp his feet. But he has a wee bit of a problem hanging around his neck with a murder rate that is better than the Cubs record. They have the Governor huffing and puffing.But if you take his wish list, we may not be that far apart.

Understand this, We went to court not once, not twice, not three times. But half a dozen. And we are winning all of them. They only have a little bit of clout and it all comes from other people not the anti-gun groups themselves.

And if we put the numbers together that I think we will, the Governor had better sit down with us right quick, or else it won't matter what he wants.

While a 9 mm or .40 caliber bullet may or may not expand, it is an undeniable fact that a .45 caliber bullet will never shrink.

If Posner wrote that there is a broader right to using a gun for self defense in general than just in the home then wouldn't that shut the door on may issue? It's not like we need a god and just reason to own a gun in our homes.

Edited by Davey, 29 December 2012 - 01:43 PM.

Find, rate and review local dealers and training professionals at GunOneOne.com!

If Lisa gets her En Banc, which I'm not even gonna guess whether they'll take it or not, and loses (which is likely to happen), that will probably suck about 6 months. So while she's screwing around with the Seventh, tick tock, her time for filing for a writ with SCOTUS is running out. If she wants to take this to "The Nine" (five of which will laugh in her face), she must file a petition for a writ within 90 days (in this case at least) of the final decision since the Seventh did not grant an interlocutory appeal. The Court could extend the time by up to 60 days, but that's very unlikely. Since it's already been 18 days, it seems Madigan is not even gonna bother with SCOTUS (gee I wonder why) and go right back to the Seventh but with 10 judges. All we need is a deadlock and the decision stands.

It's probably something along the lines of you can only carry in public places outdoors, only on the fourth Tuesday, when the sun is in the east and you are wearing a blue shirt. Heaven help you if you violate this in any shape, way or form.

the antis wrote a new yourk style into their draft. We ain't buying it.

We went to court we won. WE and I am not in the mood to walk backwards from that. they were warned. Now we just need to find a couple of votes to seal the deal. How we get there is the path I seek. You see, through all of this maze of the legisalture a fog of war there is a path. My job is to find it, and stay on it. not vear tot he right or vear to the left. Just stay on the path.

That is how i see my role. That means writing a bill that takes advantage of the Court situtation and the politics of the legislature. WE know the minefield better than the other side. WE know the players better than the otherside. We know the politics of the issue better than the other side.

They have the Mayor who will scream and yell andstamp his feet. But he has a wee bit of a problem hanging around his neck with a murder rate that is better than the Cubs record. They have the Governor huffing and puffing.But if you take his wish list, we may not be that far apart.

Understand this, We went to court not once, not twice, not three times. But half a dozen. And we are winning all of them. They only have a little bit of clout and it all comes from other people not the anti-gun groups themselves.

And if we put the numbers together that I think we will, the Governor had better sit down with us right quick, or else it won't matter what he wants.

Thank you for the update, Todd. And thank you for all your efforts on this.

The govs wish list?? To make sure you have the right to defend yourself on some public property but not all public property. If you have to shoot a bad guy on a street corner its 'ok'. If its a college campus youre just supposed to lay down and die because you were safer leaving the gun in the car.

Still, the governor has made it clear he wants tough restrictions when it comes to who can carry a gun and where. He argues that those with felony convictions and a history of driving under the influence or domestic violence should not qualify for a permit in Illinois, adding that the state must be equally diligent about denying permits to those with mental illness.

Since these people are already banned by existing law and very few want this changed, I think I can compromise and accept this.

He also wants to ban guns from being carried at schools, university campuses and shopping malls, saying the state's own mass shooting at Northern Illinois University in February 2008 is a reminder of the strict precautions lawmakers should take.

There will certainly be a fight over just where in public you can carry. Few of the mass killers legally owned the firearms they used anyway. In any case, how would banning law abiding people from doing anything ever affect the lawless, other than to embolden the lawless.

Quinn said he also will push for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines when lawmakers return to Springfield in January.

He can push for anything he wants. I am not sure rifles that look different than other rifles are part of the LTC dialogue unless part of the deal is we can carry them as well with a LTC. Pretty hard to carry them concealed though so that would mean open carry must be on the table.

"We have to have some places that people cannot carry loaded weapons that are concealed on their person," Quinn said. "We have to have limitations on that, and I think that the court when it issued its ruling ... made that clear, that limitations that are reasonable can be placed on so-called concealed carry."

How about we just ban all guns including those of government employees in these areas if guns themselves are the problem?

Gun rights activists in Illinois acknowledge that some rules must be put in place, particularly proper training regulations to make sure gun holders know how to use their weapons safely.

I hope not too many "gun rights activists" are pushing training regulations. Training in general is a good idea but it can be used to make it harder and more expensive to get a LTC thus taking LTC out of the realm of many people.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

I'm also thinking, we may actually have to try out constitutional carry for a while, let the meddling control freak socialists get their undies in a bunch and when their blood pressure gets really really high then they can sign off on our carry bill.

Another reason the anti-gunners don't want to see constitutional carry - is because when the streets don't run crimson with blood, (like they said it would) and when Illinois doesn't turn into the OK corral, (like they said it would), and when armed robberies, rapes and burglaries start to plummet, the people in those cities like Chicago and Oak Park are going to demand that the BS anti-gun ordinances be repealed. And then the anti-gunners have really completely totally lost.

They don't want to see that happen, so they'll deal.

Well,you're almost right.What they don't want to lose is the money for the permitting system.

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense".

"God made men,but Colt made them equals"

"Guns don't kill people..husbands who come home early do" -Larry The Cable Guy

I can understand the argument for training, to a point. However, on the other side, some people who carry for defense may carry a very small weapon, and may only be accurate a short distance. At a close range of an assault, point and shoot would be enough. I would say that though my wife is a good shot in most respects, she would have no issue shooting a thug near point blank.

the antis wrote a new yourk style into their draft. We ain't buying it.

We went to court we won. WE and I am not in the mood to walk backwards from that. they were warned. Now we just need to find a couple of votes to seal the deal. How we get there is the path I seek. You see, through all of this maze of the legisalture a fog of war there is a path. My job is to find it, and stay on it. not vear tot he right or vear to the left. Just stay on the path.

That is how i see my role. That means writing a bill that takes advantage of the Court situtation and the politics of the legislature. WE know the minefield better than the other side. WE know the players better than the otherside. We know the politics of the issue better than the other side.

They have the Mayor who will scream and yell andstamp his feet. But he has a wee bit of a problem hanging around his neck with a murder rate that is better than the Cubs record. They have the Governor huffing and puffing.But if you take his wish list, we may not be that far apart.

Understand this, We went to court not once, not twice, not three times. But half a dozen. And we are winning all of them. They only have a little bit of clout and it all comes from other people not the anti-gun groups themselves.

And if we put the numbers together that I think we will, the Governor had better sit down with us right quick, or else it won't matter what he wants.

I agree with all that Todd,but couldn't ya leave the poor Cubs out of it?

Patrick Henry: "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense".

"God made men,but Colt made them equals"

"Guns don't kill people..husbands who come home early do" -Larry The Cable Guy